Old Grand Dad 114?

[Potbanger]

I'm fairly new... is there a thread or FAQ that would have the meanings for stuff like BIB? I see stuff like that all the time on this bbs (there I go!) and am usually left out of the conversation a bit until I figure it out. It's like the Pentagon here - everything is an acronym!

I'm not complaining, I just want to catch up!

[callmeox]

There's a few sticky threads at the top of the New To Straightbourbon forum, here's the one on terminology:

http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/announcement.php?f=43&a=8

Learn the buzzwords and you'll be talking like a pro in no time. :slappin:

[polyamnesia]

I'm fairly new... is there a thread or FAQ that would have the meanings for stuff like BIB? I see stuff like that all the time on this bbs (there I go!) and am usually left out of the conversation a bit until I figure it out. It's like the Pentagon here - everything is an acronym!

I'm not complaining, I just want to catch up!

yeah i understand, and there are often (much of the time!) i don't know WHAT whiskey they are talking about!

BIB i've picked up and use more often...it's Bottled in Bond/100proof.

some get to be easier like WT101 (wild turkey 101), etc...

still, things like FRSB always stump me....until i get a bottle! (four roses small batch)...i THINK i got that right.

WELCOME. folk here are helpful! much more than i am!:grin:

[ratcheer]

still, things like FRSB always stump me....until i get a bottle! (four roses small batch)...i THINK i got that right.

No, I believe it is Four Roses Single Barrel.

Tim

[polyamnesia]

No, I believe it is Four Roses Single Barrel.

Tim

thanks tim!

i knew i probably had it wrong (at least a good demonstration for our new member):grin:

[Rughi]

The Grand Dad 114 seems to be suffering from the Elijah Craig 12 inconsistency "problem" of late.

Of the 2 bottles I've had this year, there has been a striking variation in them, especially in the predominance of rye. One was (from memory) bottle marked 2005 the other 2006, so I don't believe there was any intentional profile drift. Us East Bay'ers were raving about one of them here some time back (posts 51-58), the one we tried a month later elicited comments like "is this a wheater?"

Roger

[Potbanger]

The Grand Dad 114 seems to be suffering from the Elijah Craig 12 inconsistency "problem" of late.

Of the 2 bottles I've had this year, there has been a striking variation in them, especially in the predominance of rye. One was (from memory) bottle marked 2005 the other 2006, so I don't believe there was any intentional profile drift. Us East Bay'ers were raving about one of them here some time back (posts 51-58), the one we tried a month later elicited comments like "is this a wheater?"

Roger

Were the "Lots" the same? Both of my bottles are from the same store, the same case and same Lot A so that's all I've ever known.

[Rughi]

Were the "Lots" the same? Both of my bottles are from the same store, the same case and same Lot A so that's all I've ever known.

The bottle marked '06 I have is "Lot no 1" - but then from my memory, every Beam-era Grand Dad 114 over the years that I've had was "Lot no 1" (the transitional one I have that is bottle marked '91 is also Lot 1) I was so used to the label never changing that you having Lot A is what surprises me.

Roger

[Potbanger]

d-oh! My bad. I was going off of memory. Both are in fact Lot No. 1.

[New2Whiskey]

How is this correctly pronounced?

One One Four

One Fourteen

Eleven 4

Hundred Fourteen

Which would be correct?

[callmeox]

How is this correctly pronounced?

One One Four

One Fourteen

Eleven 4

Hundred Fourteen

Which would be correct?

That's what I say, but I'm no benchmark.

[Rughi]

d-oh! My bad. I was going off of memory.

It happens.

That happened to me a couple of weeks ago in a different thread, where I was trying to rattle Four Roses still proofs off the top of my head...and totally blew it.

It sounds like "Lot no 1" is as unchanging as "Lot 40" and "Lot B." Doesn't seem to diminish the pleasure of drinking other, but it is a bit weird.

Roger

[cowdery]

The two bottles I have are from the same store and are listed as "Lot A" on the rear... does this mean anything?

As far as I know, every bottle of OGD 114 ever produced has been from Lot 1. So, no, it doesn't mean anything.

[ratcheer]

I also say "One Fourteen", but I too proclaim no special knowledge.

Tim

[Potbanger]

As far as I know, every bottle of OGD 114 ever produced has been from Lot 1. So, no, it doesn't mean anything.

Either that, or it's too expensive to call the graphics department and have them design a new label.

[shoshani]

How is this correctly pronounced?

One One Four

One Fourteen

Eleven 4

Hundred Fourteen

Which would be correct?

I've always said one fourteen.

When referring to my favorite expressions of either Weller or Old Rip, I say "one oh seven". Because "one aught seven" is just pretentious.

[spun_cookie]

As far as I know, every bottle of OGD 114 ever produced has been from Lot 1. So, no, it doesn't mean anything.

[Josh]

I've always called it CXIV.

[Phantos]

this is a wheater? :/

is this possibly the orig OGD/BH mashbill vatted with JB mashbill at good proof?

I taste that JB/JBB/KC liqourish taste without the bubble gum...

I am not really getting the burnt brownie but I am def getting the biscuit.

I did not read the whole thread but this is what my palette is telling me...

although my palette might be ruined from a long afternoon with really heavy hops-driven micro beers from tap.

what do you guys think?

(taste great no matter what! I am glad to have found it, thanks to you all!)

[ratcheer]

It is most definitely not a wheater, it is one of the higher rye of all the rye flavored mashbills.

Tim

[Rughi]

this is a wheater? :/

[Phantos]

the wheater thing was just something I read earlier in this thread...

but I am drinking KC back to back with OLD114 tonight...

and they seem to be highly related...

same mash bill?

I know both are Beam product.

[Josh]

the wheater thing was just something I read earlier in this thread...

but I am drinking KC back to back with OLD114 tonight...

and they seem to be highly related...

same mash bill?

I know both are Beam product.

Different mashbill, different yeast. Both are indeed Beam products, but when Beam bought National Distillers, they decided to keep OGD the same (or at they used the same yeast and mashbill) while they turned ND's other bourbons, Old Crow and Old Taylor, into bottom shelfers. They also kept OGD at 86 proof, and kept the BiB and 114 expressions.

When Beam started its small batch collection, they decided to create Basil Hayden as OGD's entry, unfortunately at 80 proof. Basil Hayden the man was, I believe, the original "Old Granddad".

The Beamishness of the current OGD would come from its aging. I have a bottle of OGD from 1987 (right before Beam bought it) and it bears a resemblence to ND OT's & Old Crows I've had, particularly in the finish. There's a certain ND funky butterscotch flavor. I agree that the current OGD has a bit of that yeasty, grassy Beam taste.

[Phantos]

When Beam started its small batch collection, they decided to create Basil Hayden as OGD's entry, unfortunately at 80 proof. Basil Hayden the man was, I believe, the original "Old Granddad".

Basil Hayden is a wheater.

what's up?

[CygnusX-1]

Basil Hayden is a wheater.

what's up?

No its not, same high rye mashbill as OGD. And yes Basil Hyden is Old Grand Dad